UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS 

COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 


THE    DAIRY  COWS    RECORD 

AND 

THE    STABLE 

By  LEROY  ANDERSON 


BULLETIN  No.  204 

Berkeley,  Cal.,  December,  1909 


BERKELEY 

THE   UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
1909 


Benjamin  Ide  Wheeler,   Ph.D.,  LL.D,  President  of  the  University. 

EXPERIMENT     STATION     STAFF. 
E.  J.  WlCKSON,  M.A.,  Director  and  Horticulturist. 

E.  W.  Hilgard,   Ph.D.,   LL.D.,  Chemist, 
W.   A.   Setchell,   Ph.D.,   Botanist, 

Ei. wood  Mead,  M.S.,   C.E.,   Irrigation  Engineer.      (Absent  on  leave.) 

Lerov  Anderson,  Ph.D.,  Dairy  Industry  and  Superintendent  University  Farm  Schools. 

M.  E.  Jaffa,  M.S.,  Nutrition  Expert,  in  charge  of  the  Poultry  Station. 

R.  H.  Loughridge,  Ph.D.,  Soil  Chemist  and  Physicist. 

C.  W.  Woodworth,  M.S.,   Entomologist, 

G.  W.  Shaw,  M.A.,  Ph.D.,  Experimental  Agronomist  and  Agricultural  Technologist,  in  charge 
of  Cereal  Stations. 

George  E.  Colby,  M.S.,  Chemist   (Fruits,  Waters  and  Insecticides),  in  charge  of  Chem.  Lab. 

Ralph  E.  Smith,  B.S.,  Plant  Pathologist  and  Superintendent  of  Southern  California  Patho- 
logical Laboratory  and  Experiment  Station. 

F.  T.  Bioletti,  B.S.,  Viticulturist. 

A.  R.  Ward,  B.S.A.,   D.V.M.,  Veterinarian  and  Bacteriologist. 

E.  W.  Major,  B.Agr.,  Animal  Industry,   Farm  Manager,  University  Farm,  Davis. 

W.  T.  Clarke,   B.S.,  Assistant  Horticulturist  and  Superintendent  of  University  Extension   in 

Agriculture. 
H.  M.  Hall.  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Botanist, 

H.  J.  Quaylb,  A.B.,  Assistant  Entomologist,  Plant  Disease  Laboratory,  Whittier. 
S.  Burd,  B.S.,  Chemist,  in  charge  of  Fertilizer  Control. 
Haring,  D.V.M.,   Assistant  Veterinarian  and  Bacteriologist, 
.  Herms,  M.A.,  Assistant  Entomologist. 
Hopper,  M.S. A.,  Dairy  Industry,   University  Farm,  Davis. 
Babcock,  B.S.,  Assistant  Agricultural  Education. 
.  Horne,  B.S.,  Assistant  Plant  Pathologist. 

Norton,  M.S.,  Assistant  Chemist,  in  charge  of  Citrus  Experiment  Station,  Riverside. 
Coit,  Ph.D.,  Assistant  Pomologist,  Plant  Disease  Laboratory,  Whittier. 
Mansell,  Assistant  in  Horticulture,  in  iMrge  of  Central  Station  grounds. 
H  Benton,  B.S.,  B.L.,  Assistant  in  Entomology. 
Hoagland,  A.B.,   Assistant  in  Agricultural  Chemical  Laboratory. 
LlPMAN,  M.A.,  Assistant  in  Soil  Bacteriology. 
Hunt,  B.S.,  Assistant  Horticulturist. 

Smith,  M.S.,  Assistant  Plant  Pathologist,  Plant  Disease  Laboratory,  Whittier. 
Smith,  M.S.,  Assistant  Plant  Pathologist. 
Hagemann,  Assistant  in  Dairying,  Davis. 
Hans  C.  Holm,  B.S.,  Assistant  in  Zymology. 

R.  M.  Roberts,  B.S.A.,  Field  Assistant  in  Viticulture,  University  Farm,  Davis. 
BOSCOE  Farrar,  B.S.,  Assistant  in  Soils  and  Farm  Crops,  University  Farm,  Davis. 

B.  S.  Brown,  B.S.A.,  Assistant  in  Horticulture,  University  Farm,  Davis. 
Howard  Phillips,  B.S.,  Assistant  in  Animal  Industry,  University  Farm,  Davis. 
L.  M.  Davis,  B.S.,  Assistant  in  Dairy  Husbandry,  University  Fai*m,  Davis. 

F.  L.  Ye  aw,  B.S.,  Assistant  Plant  Pathologist,  University  Farm,  Davis. 
F.  D.  Hawk,  B.S.A.,  Assistant  in  Animal  Industry. 

A.  J.   Gaumnitz,   M.S.,   Assistant  in  Cereal  Investigations,   University  Farm,   Davis. 

S.   S.  ROGERS,  Assistant  Plant  Pathologist,   Plant  Disease  Laboratory,   Whittier. 

P.  L.  McCreary,   B.S.,  Laboratory  Assistant  in  Fertilizer  Control. 

P.    E.   JOHNSON,   B.S.,   Assistant  in   Soil   Laboratory. 

M.   E.   Stover,  B.S.,   Assistant  in  Agricultural  Chemical  Laboratory. 

CHARLES  PuCHS,  Curator  Entomological  Museum. 

I\   L.  Hibbard,  B.S.,  Assistant  Fertilizer  Control  Laboratory. 

X.   D.    [NGHAM,  Assistant  in  Sylviculture,   Santa  Monica. 

.1.    I).   Rose,  B.S.,  Assistant  in  Cereal  Laboratory. 

L.   BONNET,   Assistant  in  Viticulture. 

Mrs.   ]>.   L.   BUNNELL,  Clerk  to  the  Director. 

W.  H.  VOLG'K,  Field  Assistant  in  Entomology,  Watsonville. 

IS.   L.   Morris,  B.S.,  Field  Assistant   in  Entomology,  San  .lose 

J.  S.  Hunteb,  Field  Assistant  in   Entomology,  San  Mateo. 

John  Tuohy,  Patron,  ") 

John  T.   Bbabss,   Foreman,  }  ™*Te  Sub-station,    rulare. 

•'    r    *°™>   Patron-        I  University   Forestry   station,  Chico. 
E.  C.  Mii.i.f.r.  Foreman,   f 


John 

C. 

M. 

w 

.  B. 

H. 

A. 

E. 

B. 

w 

.  T. 

J. 

H. 

J. 

E. 

R. 

E. 

D. 

LLP 

R. 

C. 

B. 

T. 

F. 

C. 

0. 

E. 

H. 

E. 

H. 

/ 


THE   DAIRY  COW'S   RECORD1 

By    LEROY    ANDERSON. 


In  response  to  an  urgent  request  from  the  leading  dairy  interests 
in  Southern  California  for  assistance  in  improving  the  city  milk 
supply,  the  writer  made  an  inspection  of  the  conditions,  and  in  con- 
sultation with  the  dairymen  decided  upon  a  general  policy  of  educa- 
tion, of  which  this  Bulletin  is  the  first  public  evidence.  The  writer 
is  of  the  opinion  that  the  reform  of  many  conditions,  now  undesirable 
in  the  methods  of  producing  milk,  can  be  better  reached  through  the 
commercial  aspect  of  the  business  and  through  education  of  the  pro- 
ducer and  the  consumer  than  through  drastic  and  radical  legislation. 

The  conditions  under  which  milk  is  produced  about  Los  Angeles 
are  not  materially  different  from  conditions  in  other  populous  centers, 
except  that  nature  is  possibly  more  kind  in  granting  more  sunshine 
and  less  rain  and  a  more  porous  soil,  all  of  which  tend  toward  an 
easier  cleanliness.  What  we  may  have  to  offer,  therefore,  of  advice  or 
counsel,  or  of  instruction,  is  applicable  to  all  of  California.  We  hope 
especially  that  the  man  who  is  producing  and  selling  directly  to  con- 
sumers in  the  smaller  towns  and  cities,  whether  he  has  one  cow  or 
forty,  may  receive  an  incentive  to  have  better  cows  and  to  keep  them 
in  a  clean  and  healthy  condition.  In  cities  like  San  Francisco  and 
Los  Angeles,  where  large  wholesalers  act  as  distributing  agencies 
between  the  producer  and  consumer  and  pasteurize  all  the  milk,  some 
of  the  dangers  that  might  result  from  disease  of  the  cow  and  uncleanli- 
ness  are  obviated.  It  does  not  have  a  pretty  sound  to  say  that  lack 
of  care  on  the  part  of  the  producers  is  partly  the  reason  for  the 
expensive  pasteurization  which  the  wholesalers  now  give  to  milk. 
Pasteurization,  however,  is  one  of  the  advance  steps  toward  a  healthier 
race  and  some  day  this  will  give  way  to  such  clean  methods  of  pro- 
ducing milk  that  it  will  not  be  necessary.  That  is  the  goal  toward 
which  we  are  all  striving. 

Just  how  to  produce  a  perfectly  clean  milk  and  of  what  it  consists 
is  not  the  purpose  of  this  Bulletin.  That  will  come  in  later  publica- 
tions. It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  it  costs  money  to  produce  such  milk, 
which  cost  must  be  met  by  a  higher  selling  price  or  by  more  profitable 


*  This  Bulletin  was  prepared  in  the  summer  of  1908,  but  could  not  then  be 
printed  because  of  lack  of  funds. 


66  UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION. 

cows,  or  both.  The  cow  is  especially  in  our  mind  just  now  and  we  call 
the  reader's  attention  to  records  of  cows  taken  from  different  sources 
to  show  by  actual  figures  how  cows  vary  in  return  to  their  owners 
from  similar  outlay  for  food  and  care. 

BLACK  AND  IMP. 

The  first  two  pictures  are  of  cows  owned  by  the  California  Poly- 
technic School  at  San  Luis  Obispo.  Black  is  a  grade  cow  and  now 
seven  years  old,  while  Imp  is  an  Ayrshire  of  the  same  age.  Black  is 
of  good  dairy  type  and  a  cow  of  much  vigor  and  of  much  persistence 
as  a  milker.  She  does  not  pose  well  for  the  photographer.  Imp 
shows  good  vigor  but  not  a  good  dairy  type.  At  the  School  the  milk 
is  weighed  from  each  cow  at  every  milking  and  is  tested  at  frequent 
intervals.    Here  are  their  records  for  two  years : 

Lbs.  Milk.  Lbs.  Fat.  Total  Fat,  2  yrs. 

Black         1906  7,672.5  361.37 

1907  6,120.4  286.27  647.64 

Imp  1906  6,349.6  260.33 

1907  6,586.9  270.06  530.39 

Difference,     117.25 
Value  of  Black's  product  over  Imp's  at  30  cts.  per  lb.,     $35.17 

Suppose  the  herd  were  half  * '  Blacks ' '  and  half  ' '  Imps, ' ' — ten  each 
— the  "Blacks"  would  return  $351.75  more  per  year  than  the  "Imps." 
Or  if  the  herd  were  all  "Blacks"  the  return  would  be  $703.50  more 
per  year  than  if  they  were  all  "Imps." 

The  students  in  Agriculture  at  the  Polytechnic  School  keep  a 
record  of  the  food  consumed  by  the  dairy  herd,  and  their  figures  show 
the  average  amount  and  cost  of  food  per  cow  per  year  to  be: 

.    2y2  tons  corn  silage  at  $2.50 $  6.25 

1  ton  alfalfa  hay 12.00 

Vj  ton  oat  hay  at  $10.00 5.00 

1  ton   wheat  bran 25.00 

Six  months'  pasture  at  50  cents 3.00 

Total  cost  of  food ' $51.25 

The  relative  profit  of  Black  and  Imp  over  the  cost  of  food  for  two 
years  is  therefore : 

Value  at  30  cts.  Cost   of  Profit  over 

Lbs.  Fat  per  lb.  Food.  Food  alone. 

Black         647.64  204.29  102.50  $101.79 

Imp  530.39  159.12  102.50  56.62 

Black  has  aboul  twice  as  much  Left  ;is  [mp  1<>  pay  for  food  and  care, 
besides  undoubtedly  returning  a  more  valuable  calf. 


Bulletin  204. 


THE    DAIRY    COW'S    RECORD. 


67 


Fig.  1.     Black. 


Fig.   2.     Imp. 


68 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION. 


FOUR  NINETEEN-WEEK  RECORDS. 


We  are  giving  below  the  records  of  four  cows  tested  by  this  Station 
and  first  published  in  Bulletin  No.  132.  These  show  a  weekly  composite 
test  of  the  milk  for  nineteen  weeks  and  illustrate  the  relative  produc- 
tion of  cows  consuming  the  same  amounts  of  feed. 


JERSEY. 

KEOHAN. 

High   Grade   Jersey 

Grade    Shorthorx 

Age   10  years. 

Age  8  vears. 

No.  of 

Milk, 

Fat, 

Fat, 

Milk 

Fat, 

Fat. 

Weeks. 

Pounds. 

Per  cent. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Per  cent. 

Pounds. 

1 

121.1 

6.0 

7.27 

127.4 

4.4 

5.60 

2 

120.7 

5.6 

6.76 

112.8 

4.6 

5.19 

3 

125.8 

5.1 

6.42 

121.3 

3.6 

4.37 

4 

119.6 

5.6 

6.70 

102.0 

4.2       * 

4.28 

5 

118.9 

5.6 

6.66 

103.8 

4.5 

4.67 

6 

123.4 

5.6 

6.91 

107.7 

4.7 

5.06 

7 

129.1 

5.8 

7.49 

115.0 

4.3 

4.95 

8 

108.7 

6.0 

6.52 

110.6 

4.4 

4.87 

9 

114.6 

5.5 

6.30 

115.3 

4.4 

5.07 

10 

110.2 

5.5 

6.06 

112.3 

3.9 

4.3S 

11 

117.1 

5.5 

6.44 

101.8 

4.5 

4.58 

12 

109.2 

4.8 

5.24 

95.6 

4.5 

4.30 

13 

104.0 

5.2 

5.41 

96.3 

4.6 

4.43 

14 

98.6 

5.6 

5.52 

111.4 

3.9 

4.34 

15 

105.2 

5.5 

5.79 

109.1 

3.7 

4.04 

16 

89.9 

5.8 

5.21 

95.3 

3.9 

3.72 

17 

90.9 

6.0 

5.45 

80.7 

4.8 

3.87 

18 

89.9 

6.5 

5.84 

80.9 

5.0 

4.05 

19 

84.6 

6.4 
5.64 

5.41 

81.3 

4.8 
4.32 

3.90 

rotal 

2,081.5 

117.40 

1,980.6 

85.67 

LINE   BACK. 

STRUBE. 

Ayrshire — Shorthorn. 

Jersey — Shorthor: 

s". 

Age  5  years. 

Age  6  years. 

Xo.  of 

Milk, 

Fat, 

Fat, 

Milk 

Fat, 

Fat, 

Weeks. 

Pounds. 

Per  cent. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Per  cent. 

Pounds. 

1 

174.9 

3.4 

5.95 

176.5 

3.7 

6.63 

2 

183.4 

3.3 

6.05 

177.4 

3.6 

6.39 

3 

185.4 

3.5 

6.49 

175.7 

3.4 

5.97 

4 

182.3 

3.4 

6.30 

162.0 

4.2 

6.80 

5 

172.1 

3.6 

6.20 

144.4 

3.8 

5.49 

6 

165.5 

3.6 

5.96 

131.1 

4.3 

5.64 

7 

171.7 

4.2 

7.21 

141.7 

3.9 

5.53 

8 

169.6 

3.6 

6.11 

140.0 

4.0 

5.60 

9 

174.7 

3.7 

6.46 

144.9 

3.9 

5.65 

10 

185.1" 

3.7 

6.85 

140.4 

3.4 

4.77 

11 

189.1 

3.8 

7.19 

156.3 

4.1 

6.41 

12 

170.2 

4.1 

6.98 

145.4 

4.1 

5.96 

13 

183.4 

3.9 

7.15 

142.4 

4.1 

6.84 

14 

163.5 

3.8 

6.21 

1 25.9 

4.6 

5.79 

15 

175.0 

3.7 

6.48 

128.9 

4.1 

5.28 

16 

173.8 

3.8 

6.60 

129.9 

3.9 

5.07 

17 

166.1 

4.1 

6.81 

123.2 

4.3 

5.30 

18 

167.9 

4.1 

6.88 

117.0 

4.3 

5.03 

19 

156.3 

4.1 

6.41 

111.9 

4.1 

4.59 

Total 


10.0 


,74 


llM.29 


2,715.0 


4.0 


los. 71 


Bulletin  204. 


THE   DAIRY    COWS    RECORD. 


69 


COMPARATIVE   VALUE   OF   PRODUCT. 


Lbs.  Fat. 

Value  at  30c.  per  lb 

Jersey 

117.40 

$35.22 

Keohan 

85.67 

25.70 

Line   Back 

124.29 

37.29 

St  rube 

108.74 

32.62 

A  STANISLAUS   COUNTY  COW. 


Fig.  3.  Jewel. 
Mr.  Frank  Hewit  of  Ceres  published  in  the  Pacific  Dairy  Review  in 
April,  1908,  the  record  of  one  of  his  cows  for  the  year  ending  February 
29,  1908.  He  presents  the  weights  and  tests  of  the  cream  from  her 
milk  made  at  the  Ceres  creamery  as  his  report  of  her  year's  perform- 
ance. This  is  his  best  cow  and  he  has  no  record  of  the  other  and 
poorer  cows  of  his  herd.  It  is  a  matter  of  interest  to  note  how  many 
dairymen  can  tell  the  yield  from  the  best  cows  which  undoubtedly 
return  a  profit,  but  there  is  no  record  kept  of  the  poor  cows,  many  of 
which  give  a  red  ink  balance  on  the  ledger. 


Lbs. 

Average  Price 

1907. 

Butter  Fat. 

cts. 

March 

60.04 

.37 

April 

55.45 

.27V> 

Mav 

56.62 

.251/, 

June 

54.87 

.28V, 

July 

57.87 

.30 

August 

53.45 

.34 

September 

48.52 

.35 

October 

48.39 

.38 

November 

41.50 

.35% 

December 

36.74 

.38 

January,  1908 

31.11 

.37 

February 

32.32 

.331/3 

Totals 


576.88 


$189.41 


70  UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION. 

We  are  glad  to  quote  the  report  of  Mr.  Hewit's  cow  Jewel  as  an 
example  of  what  many  an  ordinary  cow  can  do.  Her  feed  for  the 
year  was  alfalfa,  both  green  and  in  hay,  with  a  liberal  ration  of  mill 
feed  and  rolled  corn  during  the  first  three  months. 

SOME  GRADE  SHORTHORNS  OF  SACRAMENTO  COUNTY. 

Mr.  Fred  H.  Harvey  of  Gait  is  one  of  the  very  few  dairymen  in 
the  State  who  are  testing  their  cows  regularly  and  thus  keeping  a 
systematic  record  of  their  production.  His  tests  are  made  once  per 
month  and  each  for  two  milkings  covering  a  period  of  twenty-four 
hours.  The  method  does  not  give  an  accurate  measure  of  »what  the  cow 
is  doing,  but  gives  a  close  approximation,  which  is  exceedingly  valuable 
to  the  owner.  We  are  the  more  pleased  to  use  Mr.  Harvey's  records, 
because  he  has  a  large  herd  of  two  hundred  or  more  cows  and  we  are 
being  continually  told  that  it  is  all  right  for  a  man  with  a  few  cows  to 
test  them,  but  when  one  has  fifty  or  more  it  is  too  expensive.  But  Mr. 
Harvey  not  only  does  not  find  it  too  expensive,  but  finds  it  very 
profitable,  for  the  evident  reason  that  he  knows  which  cows  are  profit- 
able and  which  unprofitable.  The  bookkeeper  of  his  ranch  of  three 
thousand  acres  does  the  testing  and  keeps  the  records. 

The  year  1907-8  was  an  unfavorable  one  at  the  Harvey  ranch  for 
the  dairy  herd.  The  usual  feed  is  pasturage  during  the  spring  and 
early  summer  months  on  such  natural  upland  grasses  as  foxtail, 
alfileria  and  bur  clover;  later  upon  alfalfa  and  plenty  of  alfalfa  hay 
during  rainy  weather.  No  grain  is  fed.  The  high  water  of  March, 
1907,  killed  all  of  the  alfalfa  and  thus  the  mainstay  of  the  ration  was 
lost  for  the  year  and  the  cows  suffered  accordingly.  Mr.  Harvey  says 
the  yield  would  have  been  about  fifty  per  cent,  higher  with  proper  food, 
i.e.,  a  cow  producing  200  pounds  of  fat  the  past  year  would  produce 
300  under  the  usual  conditions.  He  writes,  "This  is  proven  by  my 
general  record  of  the  dairy  and  also  from  the  net  income  derived,  which 
last  year  was  about  $20.00  per  head  and  for  several  years  previous  was 
about  $30.00  per  head. ' ' 

Records  of  ten  of  the  cows  are  given.  The  date  indicates  the  day  of 
the  month  the  milk  was  weighed  and  tested,  which  date  was  about  the 
20th.  The  fat  produced  on  this  day  is  multiplied  by  the  number  of 
days  intervening  since  the  last  preceding  test  and  this  result  taken  as 
the  yield  of  butter  fat  for  the  month.  The  date  of  beginning  the 
record  is  from  one  to  two  weeks  after  the  cow  drops  her  calf  and  in 
each  case  we  have  thought  best  to  give  both  dates.  The  record,  for 
the  first  period    is.  therefore,  often   for  only   a   few  days,   which    fact 


Bulletin  204. 


THE   DAIRY    COWS    RECORD. 


71 


must  be  taken  into  consideration  when  comparing  the  cows.  The 
number  of  the  cow  is  some  indication  of  her  age;  as  the  younger  the 
cow  the  higher  her  number,  showing  that  she  came  later  into  the  herd. 


No.  143.     Calved 'Aug.  20,  190 
Record  began  August  24. 
Total 


No.  171.     Calved  April  24,  190; 


Record  began  May 


Date 

of 
Test. 

Sept.  20 
Oct.  21 
Nov.  19 
Dec     18 

L908. 
Jan.  21 
Feb. 
Mar. 
Apr. 
May 
June 
July 


Lbs. 
Milk. 

27 
21 
16 

15 

15 

16 
27.3 
30.4 
22.6 
12.2 
9.6 


Per 
cent. 
Fat. 

3.2 
3.5 
3.5 

9   fi 


3.5 
3.3 

2.8 
3.2 
3.2 

2.8 
3.5 


lbs.  Fat 
lor  Day. 

.864' 

.735 

.560 

.420 

.525 
.528 
.764 
.973 
.723 
.342 
.336 


Total  11  months 


Total 

lbs.  Fat 

to  Date. 

24.19 

22.78 
16.24 
12.18 

17.85 
15.84 
22.94 
29.19 
21.69 
10.26 
10.75 


Date 
of 

Test. 


May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept, 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

1908. 
Jan.     21 
Feb.     20 
Mar.    21 


Lbs. 
Milk. 

31 
24 
21 
20 
14 
16 
17 
13 


Per 
cent. 
Fat. 

3.6 
3.5 
3.8 
3.9 
4.6 
3.7 
4.1 
4.3 


3.0 


Total 
lbs.  Fat 
for  Day. 

1.116 
.840 
.798 
.780 
.644 
.592 
.697 
.559 

.494 
.260 
.534 


Total 
lbs.  Fat 
to  Date. 

12.28 
26.88 
27.93 
22.62 
19.32 
18.35 
20.91 
15.65 

16.80 

7.80 
16.02 


203.91 

204.56 

Apr. 

20 

12.5 

3.2 

.400 

12.00 

May 

21 

12.3 

3.3 

.406 

12.59 

June 

19 

10.1 

3.8 

.384 

11.14 

July 

22 

9.2 

3.9 

.359 

11.85 

Dry  August  16,  1908. 


Total  for  lactation 

period,  15  months   252.04 
Dry  August  16,  1908. 


No.  337.     Calved  Feb.  24,  1907. 
Record  began  March  4. 


No.  355.     Calved  Mar.  27,  1907. 
Record  began  April  11. 


Date 

of 
Test. 

Lbs. 
Milk. 

Per 
cent. 
Fat. 

Total 
lbs.  Fat 
for  Day. 

Total 
lbs.  Fat 
to  Date. 

Date 
of 

Test. 

Lbs. 
Milk. 

Per 
cent. 
Fat. 

Total 
lbs.  Fat 
for  Day. 

Total 
lbs.  Fat 
to  Date. 

Mar.    1 6 

25 

3.0 

.750 

9.75 

Apr. 

16 

39 

3.3 

1.287* 

7.72 

Apr.     1 6 

26 

3.2 

.832 

25.79 

May 

18 

37 

3.7 

1.369 

43.81 

May    17 

28 

3.4 

.952 

29.51 

June 

18 

29 

3.4 

.986 

30.57 

June    19 

20 

3.2 

.640 

21.12 

July 

22 

25 

3.2 

.800 

27.20 

July     22 

15 

3.3 

.495 

16.33 

Aug. 

21 

23 

3.3 

.759 

22.77 

Aug.    21 

14 

3.1 

.434 

13.02 

Sept. 

19 

20 

3.6 

.720 

20.88 

Sept.    20 

12 

3.6 

.432 

12.96 

Oct. 

20 

19 

3.5 

.665 

20.61 

Oct.      20 

10 

3.3 

.330 

9.90 

Nov. 

19 

17 

3.3 

.561 

16.83 

Nov.    19 

9 

4.5 

.405 

12.15 

Dec. 

19 

14 

3.4 

.476 

14.28 

Dec.    18 

/ 

3.8 

.266 

7.71 

1908. 

1908. 
Jan.     22 
Feb.     20 
Mar.    21 

7 

7 
10.4 

Total 

3.6         .252 
3.8      •    .266 
3.4         .353 

13  months 

8.82 

7.71 

10.60 

Jan. 
Feb. 
Mar. 
Apr. 

21 
21 
20 
21 

13 
14 
18.4 
26.4 

3.4 
3.7 
3.5 
3.7 

.442 
.518 
.644 
.977 

14.59 
16.06 
18.03 
31.26 

185.37 

284.61 

May 

20 

12.5 

4.1 

.512 

14.85 

June 

20 

6.6      4.1 
Total  for 

.271 
lactation 

8.40 

period,  1 

5  months 

307.86 

The  cow  sold. 

Dry  July  19, 

1908. 

72 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION. 


No.  452.     Calved  '. 

May  15,  1907. 

No.  48 

7.     Calved  May  25,  1907. 

Eecord  began 

June  19. 

• 

Eecord 

began 

June  4. 

Date 

of 
Test. 

Lbs. 
Milk. 

Per 
cent. 
Fat. 

Total 
lbs.  Fat 
for  Day. 

Total 
lbs.  Fat 
to  Date. 

Date 

of 
Test. 

Lbs. 
Milk. 

Per 
cent. 
Fat, 

Total 
lbs.  Fat 
for  Day. 

Total 
lbs.  Fat 
to  Date. 

July 

22 

22 

3.0 

.660 

22.44 

June 

18 

25 

3.9 

.975 

14.62 

Aug. 

21 

14 

3.5 

.490 

14.70 

July 

22 

24 

3.2 

.768 

26.11 

Sept, 

19 

14 

2.8 

.392 

11.37 

Aug. 

21 

21 

3.0 

.630 

18.90 

Oct. 

21 

10 

2.2 

.220 

7.04 

Sept. 

20 

20 

3.3 

.660 

19.80 

Nov. 

20 

9 

3.6 

.324 

9.72 

Oct. 

20 

17 

3.4 

.578 

17.34 

Dec. 

18 

10 

3.5 

.350 

9.80 

Nov. 

19 

17 

3.4 

.578 

17.34 

1908. 

Dec. 

19 

13 

3.3 

.429 

12.87 

Jan. 

22 

6 

2.6 

.156 

5.46 

1908. 

Feb. 

21 

9.5 

3.4 

.323 

9.69 

Jan. 

21 

13 

3.0 

.390 

12.87 

Mar. 

21 

9.9 

2.7 

.267 

7.74 

Feb. 

21 

14.5 

3.0 

.435 

13.48 

Apr. 

21 

10.2 

3.0 

.306 

9.49 

Mar. 

20 

19.4 

2.7 

.524 

14.67 

May 

21 

5.6 

3.5 

.196 

5.88 

Apr. 

20 

22.8 

3.5 

.798 

24.74 

June 

19 

2.4 
Total 

4.5         .108 
.  12  months 

3.13 

May 

20 

17.8 

4.2 

.748 

22.44 

116.46 

214.18 

June 

20 

11.7 

3.9 

.456 

14.14 

July 

21 

7.6 
Total 

3.5 
for 

266 
lactation 

8.25 

period,  14  months 

236.57 

Dry  July  7,  1908. 

Dry  August  1, 

,  1908 

No.  470.     Calved  Aug.  19,  1907. 
Eecord  began  Aug.  28. 


Date 
of 

Test. 

Sept.  20 
Oct.  20 
Nov.  20 
Dec.     18 

1908. 
Jan.  22 
Feb. 
Mar. 
Apr. 
May 
June 


21 
21 
20 
21 
19 


Lbs. 
Milk. 

27 

24 

17 

11 

11 
12.5 
17.3 
16.5 
11.6 
1.5 


Per 

cent. 
Fat. 

2.8 

3.0 

3.0 

2.5 


2.8 
2.8 
2.4 
2.5 
2.6 
2.8 


Total        Total 
lbs.  Fat     lbs.  Fat 
for  Day.  to  Date. 


.756 

.720 
.510 
.275 

.308 
.350 
.415 
.412 
.302 
.042 


Total  10  months 


18.14 
21.60 

15.81 

7.70 

10.78 
10.50 
12.04 
12.36 
9.36 
1.22 

119.51 


No.  472.     Calved  Aug.  22,  1907. 
Eecord  began  September 


Date 

of 
Test. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 
Dec. 


20 
21 
19 

18 


1908. 


Jan. 
Feb. 
Mar. 
Apr. 
May 
June 


July 


20 
21 
21 
21 
19 


Lbs. 
Milk. 

23 

20 

20 

12 

18 

20 

24.1 

24.3 

20.4 

12.4 


Per 
cent. 
Fat. 


2.8 
3.0 
3.2 

3.3 
3.3 
3.2 

2.7 
3.0 
2.8 


5.1      4.2 


Total 
lbs.  Fat 
for  Day. 

.736 

.560 

.600 

.384 

.594 
.660 
.771 
.656 
.612 
.347 


.214 


o. 

Total 
lbs.  Fat 
to  Date. 

11.77 

17.36 

17.40 

11.14 


20.79 
19.14 
23.13 
20.34 
18.36 
10.06 

169.49 
6.85 


Dry  .July  7,  1908. 


Total  for  lactation 

period,  11  months   176.34 
Dry  August  16,  1908. 


Bulletin 

204. 

THE   DAIRY 

COW'S   RECORD. 

73 

No.  505.     Cal 

ved  Feb.  10, 

1907. 

No.  504.     Calved 

Feb.  7,  1907. 

Eecord  began  February 

24. 

Record 

began 

Feb.  19. 

Date 

of 
Test. 

Lbs. 
Milk. 

Per 
cent. 
Fat. 

Total 
lbs.  Fat 
for  Day 

Total 
lbs.  Fat 
.   to  Date. 

Date 

of 
Test. 

Lbs. 
Milk. 

Per 
cent. 
Fat. 

Total 
lbs.  Fat 
for  Day. 

Total 
lbs.  Fat 
to  Date. 

Mar.    16 

15 

2.8 

.420 

8.82 

Mar. 

16 

19 

3.3 

.627 

16.30 

Apr.     1 7 

15 

3.1 

.465 

14.88 

Apr. 

17 

20 

3.3 

.660 

21.12 

May     18 

21 

2.9 

.609 

18.88 

May 

18 

21 

3.4 

.714 

22.13 

June    19 

12 

3.1 

.372 

11.90 

June 

18 

15 

3.3 

.495 

15.34 

July     22 

10 

3.9 

.390 

12.87 

July 

23 

14 

3.1 

.434 

15.19 

Aug.     21 

8 

3.4 

.272 

8.16 

Aug. 

21 

13 

3.5 

.455 

13.19 

Sept,    20 

7 

3.6 

.252 

7.56 

Sept. 

19 

11 

3.6 

.396 

11.48 

Oct.      20 

10 

3.6 

.360 

10.80 

Oct. 

21 

10 

3.8 

.380 

12.16 

Nov.    19 

4 

3.8 

.152 

4.56 

Nov. 

20 

9 

3.8 

.342 

10.26 

Dec.     19 

4 

3.5 

.140 

4.20 

Dec. 

18 

10 

3.8 

.380 

10.64 

1908. 

1908. 

Jan.     22 

5 

3.0 

.150 

5.10 

Jan. 

22 

9 

3.8 

.342 

11.97 

Feb.     20 

5.5 

3.3 

.182 

5.28 

Feb. 

21 

12 

3.4 

.408 

12.24 

Mar.    21 

8.9 

3.2 

.285 

8.55 

Mar. 

20 

16.7 

3.2 

.534 

14.95 

Apr.     21 

9.6 

3.2 

.307 

9.53 

Apr. 

20 

20.3 

3.2 

.650 

20.15 

May    20 

5.7 
Total 

3.8         .217 
15  months 

6.28 

May 

21 

16.t> 

3.3 

.548 

16.98 

137.38 

224.11 

June 

20 

10.6 

3.9 

.413 

12.39 

July 

22 

8.9 

4.2 

.374 

11.97 

Aug. 

20 

6.0 

4.4 

.264 

7.66 

Dry  June  14,  1908. 


Total  18  months         256.13 


COMPARATIVE   RECORD   OF   TEN    HARVEY    COWS. 


Value  at 
30c.perlb. 


Number 
of  Cow. 

Months  in   Lacta- 
tion Period. 

Lbs.  of 
Fat. 

143 

11 

203.91 

171 

15 

252.04 

337 

13 

185.37 

355 

15 

307.86 

452 

12 

116.46 

487 

14 

236.57 

470 

10 

119.51 

472 

11 

176.34 

505 

15 

137.38 

504 

18 

256.13 

561.17 
75.61 
55.61 
92.36 
34.94 
70.97 
35.85 
52.90 
41.21 
76.84 


Average  per 
Month. 

$5.56 

5.04 

4.28 

6.16 

2.92 

5.07 

3.58 

4.81 

2.75 

4.27 


A  comparison  of  the  records  shows  a  variation  in  the  average 
monthly  revenue  from  $2.75  to  $6.16.  It  would  not  be  just  to  compare 
No.  505  with  No.  355  because  the  former  is  a  young  heifer  and  the 
latter  a  full  aged  cow.  If  the  records  are  compared  in  pairs  as  given 
in  the  tables,  cows  of  similar  ages  will  be  considered.  Numbers  143 
and  171,  two  old  cows,  give  very  nearly  the  same  returns;  numbers  337 
and  355  show  a  difference  of  $1.88  per  month;  numbers  452  and  487 


74  UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION. 

show  a  difference  of  $2.15  per  month ;  numbers  470  and  472  show  a 
difference  of  $1.23  per  month ;  and  numbers  505  and  504  show  a 
difference  of  $1.52  per  month. 

AN  ALL  AROUND  IMPROVEMENT. 

Regularly  testing  the  dairy  herd  is  only  the  beginning  of  the 
improvement  that  will  surely  follow  a  persistence  in  the  practice  of 
testing.  The  first  important  thing  to  know  is  which  are  the  best  cows. 
This  knowledge  is  the  foundation  upon  which  all  future  development 
and  progress  are  builded.  Into  man's  hands  has  been  placed  the  power 
of  improving  all  domestic  animals.  It  is  a  power,  which  when  wisely 
used,  brings  increased  revenue  and  a  joy  and  satisfaction  in  having 
added  something  substantial  to  the  world's  progress.  To  the  lover  of 
nature  nothing  can  appeal  more  strongly  than  the  possession  of  the 
ability  to  improve  upon  the  animals  or  plants  with  which  our  lot 
happens  to  be  cast.  Every  dairyman  may  be  a  real  breeder  if  he  so 
desires  and  so  wills  and  follows  the  laws  laid  down  by  nature. 

In  addition  to  selection  for  breeding  purposes  the  other  chief 
influences  for  the  improvement  of  animals  are  food,  climate,  and 
heredity.  The  soil  is  concerned  in  this  improvement  in  so  far  as  it 
affects  the  character  and  quantity  of  food  produced.  It  is  interesting 
to  note  the  influence  of  these  forces  working  under  comparatively 
natural  conditions  as  we  see  them  in  the  development  of  some  of  our 
famous  dairy  breeds.  That  the  different  breeds  of  cattle  sprang  from 
one  source  is  believed  to  be  one  of  the  established  facts  in  the  evolution 
of  animal  life.  "The  systematic  naturalist,  who  generally  knows 
nothing  of  the  art  of  breeding,  who  does  not  pretend  to  know  how 
and  when  the  several  domestic  races  were  formed,  who  cannot  have  seen 
the  intermediate  gradations,  for  they  do  not  now  exist,  nevertheless 
feels  no  doubt  that  these  races  are  sprung  from  a  single  source."* 

We  have  but  to  notice  the  changes  made  in  animal  form,  or  in  the 
production  of  meat  and  milk  during  the  past  half  century,  to  make 
it  readily  conceivable  that  the  antipodes  of  breed  characteristics  could 
have  developed  from  one  parent  stock  during  the  ages  which  cattle 
have  undoubtedly  been  upon  the  earth.  The  most  noted  and  remark- 
able differences  are  found  between  the  cattle  whose  whole  tendency 
is  to  produce  meat  and  those  whose  tendency  is  to  produce  milk.  But 
it  is  more  to  our  point  to  consider  the  latter  only  and  amongst  these 
varieties  are  found  breeds  which  show  marked  characteristics.  No 
better  illustration  of  opposites  in  development  in  dairy  cattle  could 


Darwin,  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,  Vol.  IT,  p.  233. 


Bulletin  204.  THE  DAiRy  cow's  record.  75 

be  imagined  than  is  afforded  by  the  Jersey  cattle  on  the  one  hand 
and  the  Holstein-Friesian  on  the  other.  Their  differences  are  indi- 
cated in  form,  size,  and  quantity  and  quality  of  milk. 

The  history  of  Holstein-Friesian  cattle  is  known,  in  legend  at 
least,  for  more  than  two  thousand  years,  and  the  important  part  in 
their  history  is  a  study  of  the  soil,  climate,  and  food  which  made  up 
the  formative  portion  of  their  environment  during  this  long  period. 
The  native  home  of  these  cattle  is  that  portion  of  The  Netherlands 
lying  contiguous  to  the  North  Sea  where  the  climate  is  cool  and  moist, 
both  by  reason  of  much  fog  and  a  high  degree  of  precipitation.  The 
soil  is  of  that  dense,  clayey  nature  which,  with  the  large  amount  of 
moisture  prevailing  induces  luxuriant  growth  of  grass.  This  combina- 
tion also  produces  a  pasturage  which  carries  a  high  percentage  of 
water  and  a  correspondingly  low  content  of  dry  or  nutrient  substance. 

Holland  dairy  practice  has  been,  for  the  most  part,  to  have  the 
cows  calve  during  the  spring  months  so  as  to  have  them  in  the  flush  of 
milking  when  turned  from  winter  stable  to  pasture.  The  cows,  then, 
during  their  heaviest  milking  period  and  during  the  time  when  they 
were  obliged  to  consume  the  most  food  in  order  to  produce  milk  as 
well  as  to  maintain  life  and  growth,  were  forced  to  obtain  the  needed 
sustenance  from  the  prevailing  luxuriant  but  watery  grass.  In  order 
to  secure  sufficient  nourishment,  the  cow  must  take  into  her  body  large 
amounts  of  this  succulent  food,  and  the  natural  result  of  such  feeding 
was  to  develop  a  large  abdomen  with  a  correspondingly  large  digestive 
capacity.  The  correlative  effect  upon  the  size  was  to  make  it  larger 
and  upon  the  bony  structure  to  make  it  somewhat  coarse  and  angular. 
But  what  is  more  to  our  present  purpose  is  the  effect  of  these  large 
quantities  of  watery  food  upon  milk  production.  The  natural  result 
has  been  to  induce  a  flow  of  milk  which  is  not  equaled  in  quantity  by 
any  other  breed  of  cattle  and  which  carries  a  lower  percentage  of 
butter  fat  and  other  solids  than  the  milk  of  any  other  of  the  improved 
dairy  breeds. 

Quite  opposite  to  the  above  conditions  were  those  under  which  the 
Jersey  cattle  have  been  developed.  Their  native  Isle  in  the  English 
Channel  possesses  a  climate  made  mild  and  equable  by  the  Gulf  Stream, 
and  one  much  dryer  than  the  climate  of  North  Holland  and  Friesland. 
The  soil  is  a  light  loam,  carrying  in  connection  with  the  relatively 
light  precipitation,  an  herbage  which  is  not  abundant,  but  is  compara- 
tively high  in  nutritive  substance  and  low  in  water  content.  Whether 
the  Jersey  cow  were  at  pasture  or  whether  stall  fed,  at  no  time  was 
she  obliged  to  consume  large  quantities  of  succulent  food  in  order  to 


76  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION. 

provide  the  nourishment  that  her  system  required.  Her  digestive 
organs  Avere  not,  therefore,  unduly  distended  and  the  correlative  effect 
of  her  food  conditions  were  such  as  to  develop  a  moderately  sized  body 
and  a  rather  fine  bony  structure.  In  the  production  of  milk,  the 
result  of  her  environment  and  food  has  been  to  produce  a  moderate 
amount  which  is  richer  in  fat  and  other  solids  than  the  milk  of  any 
other  breed  of  cattle. 

That  the  wide  variations  found  between  the  breeds  under  discus- 
sion are  due  in  a  large  degree  to  different  conditions  of  soil,  climate, 
and  food  is  believed  to  be  quite  true.  What  the  original  type  of 
animal  was  in  either  case  before  coming  under  the  influences  where 
history  records  their  beginning  as  distinct  breeds,  no  one  knows. 
What  they  are  to-day  and  what  has  been  their  habitat  for  centuries 
is  known  to  all  readers  of  animal  history.  There  can  be  but  one  con- 
clusion, viz.,  that  the  natural  conditions  and  exigencies  which  go  to 
make  up  the  environment  of  the  respective  countries  are  responsible 
in  the  largest  degree  for  the  dissimilarity  between  the  two  breeds. 

The  inheritance  of  the  dairyman  of  the  twentieth  century  is  the 
power  exerted  by  centuries  of  accumulated  force  generated  by  similar 
conditions  of  food,  climate,  and  breeding,  and  increased  in  many  herds 
by  the  best  scientific  thought  and  practice  of  the  past  generation. 
Shall  we  say  that  the  dairyman  of  to-day  cannot  do  as  well  as  he  of  a 
century  ago?  Or  may  we  say  that  he  will  take  this  inheritance  and 
make  more  advancement  in  a  generation  than  his  predecessors  did 
in  a  century  ?  It  is  within  his  power  to  do  if  he  will.  We  do  not  need 
to  make  new  breeds;  there  are  so  many  now  that  one  to  meet  every 
need  may  readily  be  selected.  The  thing  essential  is  to  observe  nature 's 
laws  and  to  aid  nature  in  herd  and  breed  improvement :  to  give  the 
best  of  feed  and  care  so  that  the  individual  may  increase  in  strength 
and  producing  power  in  our  hands,  and  then  make  use  of  modern 
methods  of  selecting  the  best  producers,  by  testing,  in  order  that  the 
blood  of  the  best  may  be  transmitted  to  future  generations. 


Bulletin  204.  THe  DAIRY  cow's  RECORD.  77 


WHAT    IS    A    GOOD    RECORD? 

By    CHESTER    W.    RUBEL, 
Instructor  in  Animal  and  Dairy  Industry,  California  Polytechnic  School. 

San  Luis  Obispo. 


In  connection  with  the  discussion  of  the  production  of  market  milk 
and  the  comparison  of  dairy  records  it  will  be  well  to  consider  briefly 
what  constitutes  a  good  dairy  record,  or  rather  what  a  dairy  cow 
should  produce  in  a  year,  and  also  methods  of  raising  the  productivity 
of  a  herd.  It  will  readily  be  understood  that  it  is  the  production  of  a 
cow  above  a  certain  standard  that  constitutes  a  profit.  The  fact  that 
a  cow  gives  5,000  pounds  of  milk  in  a  year  is  no  proof  that  she  is 
five-sixths  as  good  as  a  cow  that  gives  6,000  pounds  a  year,  or  five- 
eighths  as  good  as  a  cow  that  gives  8,000  pounds  a  year.  It  requires 
a  certain  amount  of  feed  and  care  for  the  cow,  which  we  may  call 
operating  expenses.  A  certain  amount  of  her  product  must  go  to  pay 
these  operating  expenses,  and  whatever  she  yields  above  this  amount 
is  profit.  If  5,000  pounds  of  milk  be  required  to  maintain  a  cow  for 
one  year,  then  cow  No.  1,  producing  5,000  pounds  will  just  manage  to 
pay  expenses.  Cow  No.  2,  yielding  6,000  pounds,  will  make  1,000 
pounds  profit,  while  cow  No.  3,  yielding  8,000  pounds,  will  make  3,000 
pounds  profit.  This  shows  cow  No.  1  to  be  worthless,  cow  No.  2  to 
be  returning  some  profit,  and  cow  No.  3  to  be  worth  three  cows  of  the 
kind  of  No.  2,  while  receiving  the  same  room  and  care.  Reducing  this 
to  figures  and  calculating  the  milk  at  four  per  cent,  fat  and  fat  at 
30  cents  per  pound,  No.  2  gives  $12.00  profit  and  No.  3,  $36.00  profit. 

If  a  dairyman  has  a  herd  made  up  of  fifteen  cows  of  the  class  of 
No.  1,  fifteen  of  the  class  of  No.  2  and  fifteen  of  the  class  of  No.  3, 
he  receives  an  average  milk  yield  of  about  6,333  pounds  and  an  average 
gross  return  of  close  to  $76.00.  This  would  yield  an  average  profit  of 
about  $16.00  (using  the  same  maintenance  figures,  5,000  pounds  of 
milk). 

Suppose  the  fifteen  cows  of  Class  I  were  detected  and  eliminated, 
then  the  average  production  of  the  herd  would  be  7,000  pounds  of 
milk  and  the  average  profit  $24.00,  the  entire  profit  being  the  same  as 
before,  with  one-third  less  cows.  Perhaps  the  cows  of  Class  II  might 
be  eliminated,  when  the  average  milk  production  would  be  brought 
up  to  8,000  pounds  and  the  average  profit  to  $36.00. 

Just  what  the  cow  should  produce  in  order  to  yield  a  profit  depends 


78  UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION. 

upon  her  cost  of  maintenance,  for  cows  can  be  maintained  in  some 
places  cheaper  than  in  others.  The  figures  given  in  another  part  of 
this  Bulletin  regarding  the  cost  of  maintenance  at  the  California  Poly- 
technic School  will  apply  to  many  other  parts  of  California.  It  is 
conceded  in  many  quarters,  that  in  order  to  make  much  of  a  profit 
under  most  California  conditions,  a  cow  must  yield  close  to  6,000 
pounds  of  milk,  containing  four  per  cent,  fat  per  year.  Perhaps  a 
smaller  yield  than  this  might  give  something  of  a  profit,  yet  so  small 
that  it  would  take  a  large  number  of  cows  to  furnish  a  small  income. 
And  we  find  the  profit  rapidly  increasing  with  the  increase  in  yield 
above  this  standard — a  cow  producing  7,000  pounds  of  the  same  fat 
content — yielding  two  or  three  times  the  profit  of  the  cow  giving 
6,000  pounds.  It  may  be  that  6,000  pounds  of  four  per  cent,  milk  is 
not  a  very  large  yield.  Almost  any  dairyman  can  point  to  many  cows 
in  his  herd  that  he  is  sure  yield  above  this  amount ;  yet  when  we  come 
to  the  test  it  is  surprising  how  many  cows  fall  below  this  minimum. 
It  is  our  inclination  in  possessing  large  numbers  to  keep  track  of  the 
production  of  animals  that  are  doing  well  and  are  likely  to  make  large 
yields,  while  little  attention  is  paid  to  ordinary  cows  and  those  making 
only  small  yields.  Nevertheless,  the  poorer  animals  are  allowed  to 
remain  in  the  herd  and  receive  practically  the  same  care,  attention  and 
feed  as  those  making  the  large  returns.  We  even  find  in  large  herds, 
cows  which  do  not  even  pay  their  board, — "boarders,"  we  call  them, — 
which  eat  up  all  their  own  yield  and  part  of  the  profit  of  the  better 
ones.  A  few  of  this  kind  can  easily  pull  down  the  average  of  the 
herd  to  a  large  degree. 

The  question  becomes,  then,  one  of  finding  the  poor  producers  and 
getting  rid  of  them.  This  is  done  by  means  of  the  scales  and  the 
Babcock  test  for  fat.  Scales  alone  will  not  do  it,  as  milk  of  different 
cows  varies  in  its  fat  content.  Here  is  where  the  rub  comes — many 
men  claiming  that  they  have  no  time  or  opportunity  to  weigh  and 
test  milk,  or  that  this  entails  too  much  expense.  This  applies  espe- 
cially to  owners  of  large  dairies  where  the  trouble  and  time  necessary 
to  test  would  naturally  be  greatest.  It  is  in  these  same  large  dairies, 
too,  where  the  greatest  loss  occurring  from  low  producing  cows  is 
generally  found.  The  larger  the  herd  the  less  opportunity  the 
owner  has  to  observe  the  individual  work  of  the  cows.  He  has  a 
fairly  good  idea  as  to  which  are  his  best  cows  and  which  his  poor  ones, 
but  as  to  the  money  those  poor  ones  are  making  or  losing  he  can  give 
no  figures. 

The  question  of  finding  out  the  individual  work  of  the  cows  in  the 
herd  has  been  solved  in  some  places  by  means  of  "testing  associations." 


Bulletin  204.  Tjie  dairy  cow's  record.  79 

A  number  of  dairymen  club  together,  hire  a  man  who  is  familiar  with 
the  work  of  testing  and  who  tests  each  cow  in  the  herd.  As  generally 
practiced,  the  tester  visits  a  ranch  once  a  month  and  tests  every 
milking  for  two  days.  The  milk  is  weighed  by  the  milkers  daily 
throughout  the  month,  but  is  tested  only  during  the  visits  of  the 
tester.  While  two  or  three  months  record  of  this  kind  will  give  a  man 
something  of  an  idea  of  the  work  of  his  cows,  it  is  when  the  entire 
twelve  months  are  finished  that  real  facts  are  brought  out  and  con- 
clusions can  be  drawn  as  to  what  cows  are  fit  to  remain  in  the  herd. 
This  method  of  testing  can  be  carried  out  at  an  expense  of  about  $1.00 
per  head  per  year.  However,  it  is  not  necessary  for  a  man  to  join  an 
association  in  order  to  have  his  cows  tested.  The  Babcock  test  is  not 
very  difficult  to  operate  and  testing  apparatus  not  expensive.  A  six 
bottle  hand  tester  may  be  bought  for  $10.00,  bottles  for  $2.50  per 
dozen,  and  pipettes  and  acid  graduates  for  20  cents  each.  Sulphuric 
acid  costs  about  $1.50  per  gallon,  and  spring  balances  for  weighing  the 
milk  cost  $5.00.  With  this  apparatus  a  man  with  a  moderate  sized 
herd  can  conduct  his  own  tests  and  be  absolutely  sure  of  what  his  cows 
are  doing. 

AID     FROM     TESTING    ASSOCIATIONS     AND     FROM     THE 
AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION. 

Cooperation  among  milk  producers  in  testing  their  herds  should  be 
encouraged.  The  present  method  of  cooperation  is  the  formation  of 
"testing  associations"  whereby  the  dairymen  in  a  given  community 
employ  a  competent  man  who  visits  each  herd  once  a  month  and 
weighs  and  tests  the  milk  from  each  cow  for  one  or  two  days.  Such 
an  association  was  recently  formed  in  Humboldt  County  with  three 
thousand  cows  represented.  The  plan  works  best  in  such  specialized 
dairy  sections  where  the  testers  have  short  distances  to  travel  and  have 
large  herds  to  handle. 

The  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  is  prepared  to  assist  in  so 
far  as  possible  in  conducting  yearly  tests  of  individual  cows  in  dairy 
herds.  Tests  are  made  for  seven  days  every  seven  weeks  with  no 
expense  to  the  owner  except  weighing  and  sampling  the  milk.  The 
Station  loans  the  balances  for  weighing  and  furnishes  sample  bottles, 
dipper,  and  printed  blanks  for  keeping  the  milk  record,  with  full 
instructions.  The  samples  with  the  weeks  record  are  shipped  to  the 
Station  where  they  are  tested  and  tjie  result  mailed  to  the  owners.  For 
full  information  address, 

Dairy  Division,  University  of  California, 

Davis,  California. 


THE   STABLE 


In  this  portion  of  the  bulletin  are  shown  illustrations  of  several 
corrals  and  milking  stables  reproduced  from  photographs  taken  by  the 
writer  in  various  parts  of  the  State.  They  represent  different  types' 
of  stables  and  corrals — some  good  and  some  bad  and  some  not  so  bad 
if  they  were  better  cared  for.  The  great  thing  to  be  desired  in  either 
is  that  there  should  be  easy  means  of  keeping  clean  and  then  keep  them 
clean.  This  is  the  chief  reason  for  using  concrete  in  stable  floors.  It 
does  not  decay  and  cause  foul  odors,  and  it  can  be  hosed  down  with 
water  and  swept  in  a  few  momenta  so  that  no  dirt  remains.  Some 
dairymen  object  to  cows  standing  on  concrete,  but  in  California  where 
the  cows  are  in  only  for  feeding  and  milking,  they  suffer  no  injury. 
Occasionally  a  very  good  stable  is  constructed  with  floors  entirely  of 
concrete,  except  where  the  cattle  stand,  which  portion  is  made  of 
plank.  This  works  well  from  a  sanitary  point  if  the  planks  are 
water  tight  or  are  underlaid  with  a  water  tight  substance  so  that  the 
soil  under  the  planks  cannot  become  saturated. 

A  milking  stable  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  production  of  clean 
milk.  Milking  in  the  corral  is  an  abomination,  either  winter  or 
summer.  In  winter  during'  the  rainy  season  it  is  not  uncommon  to  see 
both  cow  and  milker  wading  nearly  to  the  knees  in  mud,  when  of 
necessity  the  milk  must  become  the  depository  for  some  of  the  mud. 
In  summer  when  the  corral  dust  may  be  from  one  to  four  or  five  inches 
deep,  the  condition  is  even  worse.  The  dust  is  raised  with  any  slight 
breeze  or  with  every  movement  of  man  or  beast,  and  even  more  dirt 
may  find  its  way  into  the  milk  than  during  the  time  of  rain  and  mud. 
Thus  the  cows  must  be  provided  with  some  stable  which  is  dry  and 
clean  and  wrhere  they  can  be  held  for  milking. 

The  stable  need  not  be  expensive.  On  the  contrary  it  may  be  very 
simple,  and  the  less  lumber  in  it  the  better,  so  long  as  the  frame  is 
sufficiently  strong.  It  should  permit  the  entrance  of  an  abundance  of 
direct  sunlight  and  have  enough  openings  to  give  constant  ventilation. 
Large  louvres  in  the  roof  are  excellent  for  ventilation  and  also  admit 
light,  but  not  direct  sunrays.  The  illustrations  show  so  many  kinds  of 
stables  that  further  comment  at  this  point  may  not  be  necessary. 


Bulletin  204. 


THE   DAIRY    COW'S    RECORD. 


81 


Fig.  4. 


Two  types  of  dairy  barns.  Fig.  4  has  the  milking  stables  extend- 
ing at  right  angles  to  the  storage  section,  a  good  arrangement  easily 
carried  out  on  level  land.  This  is  the  barn  on  the  University  Farm, 
Davis.  The  milking  stable  is  41  feet  wide  and  has  two  rows  of  cows 
with  feed  way  between.  In  Fig.  5,  the  milking  stable  is  continuous 
with  the  storage  section.  It  accommodates  four  rows  of  cows  as  shown 
in  Figs.  6  and  7.  The  two  silos  are  of  concrete.  The  barn  is  located 
at  Dixon  and  houses  a  certified  dairy. 

Fig.  6  shows  the  center  of  stable  where  two  rows  of  cows  stand, 
tails  together.  Fig.  7  shows  the  feed  way  between  two  rows  of  cows 
on  one  half  of  stable  shown  in  Fig.  5.    The  floors  and  feed  troughs  are 


Fig.  5. 


82 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION. 


Fig.    6. 


entirely  of  concrete.  The  shallow  feed  trough  is  especially  convenient 
in  feeding  grain,  silage  or  cut  feed.  With  hay  there  is  more  or  less 
work  in  sweeping  it  back  after  the  cows  throw  it  out.  The  bottom  of 
the  trough  should  not  be  on  a  lower  level  than  the  front  feet  of  the 
cows.  It  had  better  be  two  or  three  inches  higher.  Note  the  open 
structure  and  abundance  of  light.  The  concrete  silo  is  at  the  end  of 
the  feed  way. 


Fig.  7. 


Bulletin  204. 


THE    DAIRY    COWS    RECORD. 


83 


*, 

to  ii 

1 

■J  *  - 

■ 

JMg.    ». 

Figs.  8  and  9  show  the  feed  way  and  gutter  portion  of  the  milking 
stable  for  two  rows  of  cows  in  the  University  Barn  at  Berkeley.  Note 
the  vertical  sides  and  fiat  bottom  of  the  gutter.  The  gutter  is  twelve 
inches  wide  but  would  be  better  if  fourteen.  The  depth  is  eight  inches 
at  the  ends  and  ten  at  the  center.  A  depth  of  four  and  six  inches 
instead  would  be  sufficient.  The  distance  from  the  stanchion  to  the 
edge  of  the  gutter  is  four  feet  ten  inches,  which  is  ample  for  almost 
all  cows.     The  floor  and  gutters  are  of  concrete. 


Fig.  9. 


84 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION. 


Fig.   10. 

Fig.  10.  The  stable  of  a  certified  dairy  near  Pasadena.  The  floors 
are  concrete  throughout  except  where  the  cows  stand,  which  are  of 
plank.  The  stable  is  arranged  for  two  rows  of  cows  with  feed  way  in 
the  center.  No  feed  is  stored  in  the  building.  The  open  sides  are 
protected  from  wind  and  dust  by  a  heavy  canvas  curtain  which  is 
rolled  up  in  good  weather. 


Fig.  11. 
Fig.  11.  Another  stable  near  Pasadena.  There  are  four  rows  of 
cows  with  an  arrangement  similar  to  that  in  Fig.  5.  A  large  hay 
storage  is  over*  the  stable  which  makes  it  too  dark  and  causes  poor 
ventilation.  The  heavy  timbering  and  stanchions  also  keep  out  the 
light.    Compare  this  with  Fig.  7.    The  floors  and  gutters  are  of  wood. 


Bulletin  204. 


THE   DAIRY   COWS   RECORD. 


85 


Fig.  12. 

Fig.  12. is  the  milking  stable  of  the  California  Polytechnic  School 
at  San  Luis  Obispo.  The  school  is  awaiting  another  appropriation  to 
erect  a  storage  barn.  The  silo  has  a  concrete  foundation  and  the 
structure  is  of  2  X  4  studding  lined  with  two  thicknesses  of  one-half 
inch  redwood  boards  with  heavy  building  paper  between.  The  illus- 
tration shows  that  a  barn  may  be  made  attractive.  This  one  is  banked 
with  red  geraniums. 


Fig.  13. 
Fig.  13  shows  the  manger  in  the  same  barn.  Note  its  simple 
structure,  leaving  the  concrete  floor  easily  cleaned.  The  inside  of  the 
manger  is  without  partitions  except  in  experimental  feeding  when  the 
partitions  seen  on  the  under  side,  front,  are  slipped  into  place  between 
each  two  cows.    The  manger  is  made  of  1  x  6  T.  &  G.  pine  flooring. 


86 


UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION. 


Fig.   14. 

Pigs.  14  and  15  show  the  front  and  rear  views  of  a  milking  stable 
and  feed  shed  near  Clearwater  in  Los  Angeles  County.  It  is  rough 
and  cheaply  built  but  it  furnishes  protection  from  the  sun  and  rain 
and  provides  a  clean  place  for  milking.  From  a  sanitary  point  of  view 
it  gives  little  protection  from  dust  when  the  wind  is  blowing.  The 
plank  walk  behind  the  cows  is  too  narrow  but  the  gutter  is  of  good 
width.    The  whole  place  has  a  neat  appearance. 


Fig.  15. 


Bulletin  204. 


THE   DAIRY    COWS   RECORD. 


87 


Fig.  16. 

Figs.  16  and  17  show  the  front  and  rear  views  of  a  milking  stable 
and  feed  shed  near  El  Monte.  It  is  constructed  on  simple  lines  and 
doubtless  with  a  view  to  economy  of  labor  since  it  is  on  the  bank  of 
the  Santa  Ana  River,  into  which  the  manure  is  shoved.  The  entire 
place  presents  an  appearance  of  untidiness  and  should  not  have  been 
permitted  to  exist. 


£M 

'.■** 

1 

f  1 

lyHkfc*^«»  m> 

-^ 

^ffi: 

C£!E 

ll^S 

mfr 

wrtp 

t|fc|L-Vflg 

IHHE 

Sififc 

Tilx"  mil  Tl~^ 

ffJBBf 

£!WM  /■  ■''  ■*■ 

' 

Tc3$&fZ 

wimU-jMh^ 

Slafe^ 

,r- -  ,.     . 

j§    '■"'' ' 

ErSShHI 

-"  4       '   '  *  '•  T*.  -. 

* 

*'5"i**<jPv 

'      1-^ 

Fig.  r 


I'XIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION. 


Fig.   18. 

Fig.  18.  Cleaning  the  corral  in  February  after  several  days'  rain. 
The  manure  and  mire  are  nearly  a  foot  deep.  Only  a  dozen  or  so  cows 
were  kept.    A  scene  in  Los  Angeles  County. 


Fig.   19. 

Fig.  19.  A  corral  containing  over  200  cows  about  one-half  mile 
from  that  in  Fig.  18.  But  this  corral  is  cleaned  so  often  that  there  is 
never  any  accumulation  of  manure.  The  soil  is  the  same  in  each  case. 
i.e.,  sandy. 


Bulletin  204. 


THE   DAIRY   COWS   RECORD. 


89 


Fig.  20. 

Fig.  20.  The  stable  adjoining  the  corral  in  Fig.  19.  The  cows  had 
just  come  in  and  very  little  mud  is  seen  on  the  floor.  Note  the  light, 
open  structure  of  the  stable.  No  feed  is  stored  in  this  stable.  The 
gutter  leads  all  liquid  to  a  small  cistern,  from  which  it  is  pumped  and 
applied  to  the  land. 


Fig.  21.  This  Los  Angeles  County  stable  has  plenty  of  light  from 
the  rear,  but  is  dark  in  front  because  all  the  center  portion  of  the  barn 
is  used  for  storing  hay, — a  bad  practice  in  a  milking  barn.  Both 
stables  show  wooden  floors  and  gutters. 


90  UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION. 


Fig.  22. 

Fig.  22.  This  is  the  corral  belonging  to  the  stable  shown  in  Fig.  11. 
It  is  an  ideal  location — sandy  soil,  sloping  to  give  good  drainage  and 
plenty  of  trees  to  give  shade  in  summer.  What  could  a  cow  ask  better 
than  this  in  the  Southern  California  sunshine. 


Station  Publications  Available  for  Distribution. 


REPORTS. 

1896.  Report  of  the  Viticultural  Work  during  the  seasons   1887-93,   with  data  regarding  the 

Vintages   of    1894-95. 

1897.  Resistant  Vines,   their  Selection,   Adaptation,    and   Grafting.      Appendix   to   Viticultural 

Report  for  1896. 

1902.  Report  of  the  Agricultural  Experiment   Station   for   1898-1901. 

1903.  Report  of  the  Agricultural   Experiment   Station  for   1901-03. 

1904.  Twenty-second  Report  of  the  Agricultural   Experiment   Station   for    1903-04. 

BULLETINS. 


Reprint.      Endurance    of    Drought    in    Soils 

of   the   Arid   Region. 
.No.  128.      Nature,   Value  and  Utilization  of 

Alkali  Lands,   and  Tolerance  of 

Alkali.      (Revised   and  Reprint, 

1905.) 
133.      Tolerance    of    Alkali    by    Various 

Cultures. 
140.      Lands    of    the    Colorado    Delta    in 

Salton   Basin,    and   Supplement. 
142.      Grasshoppers    in    California. 
147.      Culture  Work  of  the  Sub-stations. 

149.  California    Sugar    Industry. 

150.  The    Value    of    Oak    Leaves    for 

Forage. 

151.  Arsenical  Insecticides. 

152.  Fumigation   Dosage. 

153.  Spraying  with  Distillates. 

154.  Sulfur  Sprays  for  Red  Spider. 
156.      Fowl  Cholera. 

159.  Contribution      to     the      Study     of 

Fermentation. 

160.  The  Hop   Aphis. 

161.  Tuberculosis  in  Fowls.    (Reprint.) 

162.  Commercial  Fertilizers.       (Dec.    1, 

1904.) 

163.  Pear   Scab. 

165.      Asparagus    and    Asparagus    Rust 
in   California. 

167.  Manufacture     of     Dry     Wines     in 

Hot  Countries. 

168.  Observations    on    Some   Vine   Dis- 

eases   in     Sonoma    County. 

169.  Tolerance   of   the    Sugar   Beet   for 

Alkali. 

170.  Studies  in   Grasshopper  Control. 

171.  Commercial  Fertilizers,     (-)une  30, 

1905.) 

172.  Further  Experience  in  Asparagus 

Rust   Control. 
174.      A   New  Wine-cooling  Machine. 

176.  Sugar   Beets   in    the   San   Joaquin 

Valley. 

177.  A    New    Method    of    Making    Dry 

Red  Wine. 


178. 
179. 

180. 
181. 

182. 

183. 
184. 

185. 

186. 
187. 

188. 

189. 

190. 
191. 
192. 

193. 

194. 

195. 
197. 


198. 
199. 
200. 

201. 

202. 

203. 


Mosquito   Control. 

Commercial  Fertilizers.  (June, 
1906.) 

Resistant  Vineyards. 

The   Selection   of   Seed-Wheat. 

Analysis  of  Paris  Green  and 
Lead  Arsenate.  Proposed  In- 
secticide Law. 

The  California   Tussock-moth. 

Report  of  the  Plant  Pathologist 
to  July  1,   1906. 

Report  of  Progress  in  Cereal  In- 
vestigations. 

The  Oidium  of  the  Vine. 

Commercial  Fertilizers.  (Janu- 
ary,   1907.) 

Lining  of  Ditches  and  Reservoirs 
to  Prevent  Seepage  and  Losses. 

Commercial  Fertilizers.  (June, 
1907.) 

The  Brown  Rot  of  the  Lemon. 

California  Peach   Blight. 

Insects  Injurious  to  the  Vine  in 
California. 

The  Best  Wine  Grapes  for  Cali- 
fornia ;  Pruning  Young  Vines ; 
Pruning  the  Sultanina. 

Commercial  Fertilizers.  (Dec, 
1907.) 

The  California  Grape  Root-worm. 

Grape  Culture  in  California ;  Im- 
proved Methods  of  Wine  Mak- 
ing; Yeasts  from  California 
Grapes. 

The   Grape   Leaf-Hopper. 

The  Bovine  Tuberculosis. 

Gum  Diseases  of  Citrus  Trees  in 
California. 

Commercial  Fertilizers.  (June. 
1908.) 

Commercial  Fertilizers.  (Decem- 
ber, 1908.) 

Report  of  the  Plant  Pathologist 
to  July   1,   1909. 


CIRCULAES. 


No.     1.      Texas  Fever. 

2.  Blackleg. 

3.  Hog  Cholera. 

4.  Anthrax 

5.  Contagious  Abortion  in  Cows. 
7.     Remedies  for  Insects. 

9.      Asparagus   Rust. 

10.  Reading   Course   in   Economic    En- 

tomology.      (Revision.) 

11.  Fumigation  Practice. 

12.  Silk  Culture. 

15.      Recent    Problems    in    Agriculture. 
What  a  University  Farm  is  For. 

17.  Why        Agriculture        Should       be 

Taught   in  the  Public   Schools. 

18.  Caterpillars   on   Oaks. 

19.  Disinfection   of    Stables. 
24.      Olive  Pickling. 

26.      Selection  and  Preparation  of  Vine 

Cuttings. 
2  7.      Marly    Subsoils    and   the    Chlorosis 

or   Yellowing   of   Citrus   Trees. 
28.      A  Preliminary  Progress  Report  of 

Cereal    Investigations,    1905-07. 


29.  Preliminary      Announcement      con- 

cerning Instruction  in  Practical 
Agriculture  upon  the  University 
Farm,   Davisville,   Cal. 

30.  White  Fly  in  California. 

32.  White  Fly  Eradication. 

33.  Packing    Prunes    in    Cans.       Cane 

Sugar  vs.  Beet  Sugar. 

35.  Southern     California     Pathological 

Laboratory  and  Citrus  Experi- 
ment  Station. 

36.  Analyses    of    Fertilizers    for    Con- 

sumers. 

3  7.  Announcement  of  Farmers'  Short 
Courses  for  1908. 

39.  Instruction  in  Practical  Agricul- 
ture at  the  University  Farm. 

41.  The  School  of  Agriculture  on  the 
University  Farm. 

45.  Announcement    of    Farmers'    Short 

Courses  for  1909. 

46.  Suggestions    for    Garden    Work    in 

California   Schools. 


Copies  may  be  had  on  application  to  Director  of  Experiment  Station,  Berkeley,  Cal. 


